Reply #12: Red Herring served up hot and fresh [View All]

[Sandpiper]

Since taxi's are licensed, and operate over public roadways, does it not serve the public good if we require them to donate a small percentage of their trips for the public? If, say for example, a person was ill, and needed a trip to the hospital, but not sick enough to require a ambulance and a EMT, why not require the closest hack to pick up that person and carry them to the nearest hospital? For Free, of course.

Boy you sure got me with your dazzling logic, or, logical fallacy should I say.

Once you boil down all the hyperbole of your post, your complaints are more or less:

1) There are too many candidates, who decides who gets free air time and who doesn't.

This one is very easily overcome. Simply set a minimum percentage of the vote that has to be captured in order to be eligible. Yep, that would be really tough.

2) It's not fair that the broadcast media can't make a profit off our electoral process. They'll lose out on money.

I know, profits first. And gosh, that's nearly impossible to overcome too. I guess the stations would have to just bite the bullet and raise the rates on commercial advertising during the election cycle to offset any potential lost revenue. I'm sure they'd hate to do that.

Yes, because we all know, that for the ONLY way for a candidate to get his message out, is by having the police arm of the government to give him the chance, for free.

You're right, what's radio and television access compared to the power of the stump speech. :eyes:

Welcome to the 21st century.